[wgerard]

> Why?

Hmm, I guess fundamentally I find it hard to believe that a large corporation would acquire a smaller one just to let them run completely independently - it just seems counter-intuitive unless the acquirer is a holding company, basically.

It definitely also doesn't seem like Amazon's jam. Twitch seemed to have a pretty large upward trajectory (and path to profitability) right around the time they were acquired, and Amazon's still clearly guiding at least some of those major decisions.

[sangnoir]

> Hmm, I guess fundamentally I find it hard to believe that a large corporation would acquire a smaller one just to let them run completely independently - it just seems counter-intuitive unless the acquirer is a holding company, basically.

I don't find it hard to believe - it is a perfectly valid defensive move to contain a potential competitor. What if an independent Zappos decided to start selling everything, not just shoes? Also, it might provide an internal 'skunkworks' where Amazon finds lessons applicable to the larger organization without killing the golden-egg-laying goose. It's quite a reasonable way of self-disrupting.

[ghostbrainalpha]

You are right that letting the acquired company "do whatever they want" wouldn't be Amazon's jam.

But the Zappos case was different. They didn't NEED to sell, so they put in the selling agreement that they get to keep a bunch of autonomy.

Basically Zappos loves being a part of Amazon for shipping and logistics benefits.

But Zappos core strategy/identity is based on being an uncommonly fun place to work and being great to its employees. They wanted to make sure when they sold that the never had to deal with employees "the Amazon" way.